I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News. I write about energy and environment issues, frequently focusing on global warming. I have presented environmental analysis on CNN, CNN Headline News, CBS Evening News, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, and several national radio programs. My environmental analysis has been published in virtually every major newspaper in the United States. I studied atmospheric science and majored in government at Dartmouth College. I obtained my Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University.

Every now and then I read a blog post that melts my heart. I truly feel the pain, anguish and anger of the writer. I may not always agree with the writer’s point of view, but I empathize with the writer’s pain nonetheless.

Reading Peter Gleick’s January 5 blog post here at Forbes.com, I experienced that empathy in full force. Gleick’s global warming beliefs are misguided and unsupported by sound science, but I nevertheless empathize with his pain and frustration that few people seem to agree with him. A person of thinner skin than me might be offended by Gleick’s frustration-induced rant, but I believe the best remedy is truth and understanding. Accordingly, I understand Gleick’s pain and I will present some truths that might ease Gleick’s anguish if he listens to them with an open heart and mind.

Gleick sets the tone for his blog post in the very first sentence, where he begins his column by stating, “The Earth’s climate continued to change during 2011….” Here, in the first eight words of his column, Gleick unwittingly reveals one of the primary reasons why he is so wrong in his dire warnings of a human-induced global warming crisis. Gleick and his fellow global warming alarmists are the ultimate climate change deniers.

They present changing climate as unprecedented and unavoidably harmful. They act as if the climate never changed before now. In reality, however, the earth’s long-term, mid-term and short-term climate history is defined by frequent and substantial climate change. Of course, as Gleick states, “The Earth’s climate continued to change during 2011”! When was the last time the Earth’s climate was not undergoing some change? Please, global warming alarmists, stop denying climate change!

Gleick finishes his opening sentence by asserting, “a year in which unprecedented combinations of extreme weather events killed people and damaged property around the world.”

That is quite a bold, unsupported statement. Just what were those extreme weather events? Gleick doesn’t say. Perhaps we can speculate.

It certainly wasn’t hurricanes, as Ryan Maue at the Florida State University Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies documents that global and U.S. hurricane activity has been remarkably quiet for the past few years. During 2009, global accumulated tropical cyclone energy reached a record low, and has remained abnormally quiet in the two-plus years since.

It certainly wasn’t tornadoes, as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports 2011 continued a long-term trend in declining frequency of strong tornadoes. Yes, there were some strong tornadoes in 2011, but there are strong tornadoes every year. The only thing climatically remarkable about the 2011 tornado season is that the relatively few strong tornadoes that did occur happened to beat the odds and touch down more often in urban areas than is usually the case. Unless Gleick is arguing that global warming somehow causes hurricanes to wickedly target disproportionately urban areas, tornadoes like hurricanes are becoming less of a threat during recent decades as the planet has modestly warmed.

It certainly wasn’t drought, as multiple peer reviewed studies report global soil moisture has consistently improved during the past century as the planet has warmed. (See, for example, this study.) Yes, some droughts are going to occur somewhere on the planet each year, as they always have, but cherry-picking one of the increasingly less frequent droughts that still do occur does not constitute evidence that global warming is causing more extreme weather events.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

After directing a full column to singling out scientists who disagree with him and attacking them (and many others) by name, Peter Gleick appears to have his feelings hurt that he is the “entire target” of my column responding to his attacks. I am sorry Peter, but I was actually empathizing with your pain and providing some reassuring truth that might make you feel better. I am sorry that the truth did not set you free.

Gleick says he cannot understand the “parallel universe” of facts and data that I presented that he says makes his “head explode.” Perhaps this is because the “parallel universe” in which I live is one where objective data trumps subjective opinion presented by uninformed or biased sources.

For example, Gleick applauds the “fine response” by an anonymous “cyruspinkerton.” And just what is the substance of what Gleick considers a “fine response”? Cyrus claims global warming must be a crisis because a large insurance corporation says natural disasters caused record economic damage last year. In other words, an anonymous person makes the remarkable claim that because a tsunami and earthquake devastated Japan last year, humans must be creating a global warming crisis. Really, are you serious?! And Peter Gleick finds this to be a “fine response”! Add this to the long list of reasons why Gleick cannot comprehend the “parallel universe” where objective data trumps subjective and ridiculous speculation.

Further in his post, the anonymous person produced a quote from an insurance industry spokesman using global warming as an excuse to charge customers higher premiums. When objective data show declining trends in tornado, hurricane and drought frequency, but an insurance industry spokesman nevertheless uses global warming myths as an excuse to charge its customers higher premiums, Gleick says giving credit to the industry spokesman’s financially self-serving comments while ignoring objective scientific data and peer-reviewed scientific studies is a “fine response.” No wonder Gleick considers objective scientific data a “parallel universe” that he says makes his head explode!

The anonymous person cites additional subjective speculation as well, presented by people with a long-term record of global warming activism, such as NOAA’s Tom Karl. Some NOAA scientists believe humans are causing a global warming crisis. Other NOAA scientists say humans are not causing a global warming crisis, even though much of NOAA’s funding is dependent upon the assertion that humans are indeed causing a global warming crisis. (Bravo for the brave NOAA scientists to stand up for truth even when it works against the financial interests at the federal funding trough!) So rather than citing the objective hurricane data, tornado data, and data-intensive peer-reviewed drought studies I cited in my column, Scientific American, the Guardian and Voice of America quote long-term global warming advocates predictably blaming anything and everything on global warming. Heck, why not just quote Al Gore while you are at it? But then again, this is what we should expect when an anonymous person and Peter Gleick appeal to the “scientific authority” of the media rather than the scientific authority of objective facts and data.

Heck, even NOAA’s “Climate Scene Investigators” (which is itself run by long-term global warming activists) has debunked many of the asserted links between global warming and extreme weather events claimed by the anonymous person and Gleick. See, for example, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/21/noaas-csi-explains-record-snows-global-warming-not-involved/ and http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_18028717 .

Gleick also further reveals his deceitfulness or ignorance (take your choice) by making the straw-man argument that 97-98 percent of scientists say the planet has warmed and human activity is one of the factors. Let me answer the survey questions myself:

Q1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels [i.e., the Little Ice Age], do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

I am the 98 percent! So are nearly all of the global warming “skeptics” that Gleick rants about.

Yet these two banal questions do not even remotely address the far more important and central question of whether or not humans are causing a global warming crisis. The mere fact that humans are likely responsible for some of the warming that has lifted the earth out of the Little Ice Age does not necessarily mean that climate Armageddon is at hand. For those who believe otherwise, please do some research on the strikingly negative climate consequences of the Little Ice Age and the striking beneficial climate consequences of the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Climate Optimum.

Gleick either knows or should know that most global warming “skeptics” believe the earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age and that human activity is a partial cause. By erroneously claiming that these two banal questions define the split between “alarmists” and “skeptics,” Gleick reveals his deceitfulness or ignorance on the core issues that divide “alarmists” and “skeptics.”

Finally, Gleick asks for the Heartland Institute to publicly reveal all the names of its donors. The Heartland Institute used to do so, while similarly appealing to other groups to do the same. However, environmental activists and other extremist groups used the information to launch a campaign of personal harassment against Heartland Institute donors while simultaneously refusing to release the names of their own donors. It is funny how Gleick rants against the alleged harassment of Katharine Hayhoe yet remains silent about the harassment of people who disagree with him. This further reveals Gleick’s appalling lack of objectivity, as does Gleick’s call for the Heartland Institute to release the names of its donors while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of global warming activist groups have been far less transparent than the Heartland Institute.

Of course, Gleick’s attempts to make Heartland Institute funding an issue while ignoring the less transparent funding reports of global warming activist groups with 10, 20, or even 80 times the funding of the Heartland Institute is a tired and sad tactic used by global warming alarmists who try desperately to take attention away from scientific facts and objective scientific data. I can see why Gleick views these scientific facts and objective data as a “parallel universe” that makes his “head spin.”

@eonomart: You seem to have forgotten that James Taylor isn’t a scientist. He his a lawyer who is paid by the Heartland Institute to lobby against policies that would impact its fossil fuel membership.

In contrast, Dr. Gleick is an actual scientist and he cites the actual scientific data by actual scientific organizations and other actual scientific researchers that have led to the actual scientific state-of-the-science.

I do wish you’d pay attention. It is Mr. Taylor who raised the topic of the Heartland Institute’s funding.

Although you give me good reason to doubt that you read Mr. Taylor’s column this week, here is the relevant bit in case you’ve forgotten:

“The Heartland Institute does indeed receive approximately $7 million in annual funding (with relatively little coming from corporations and only a very small fraction coming from corporations having anything to do with the global warming debate).”

GM, if you disapprove of discussions of funding sources, please lodge your complaint with Mr. Taylor instead of me. Since Mr. Taylor introduced the issue of funding sources into the conversation, your concern about enacting a ban on the topic should be taken up with him.

You refer to Forbes member Cyrus Pinkerton as an “anonymous person.” Can you tell me how you determined Cyrus Pinkerton is an “anonymous person?”

I’m curious too why you identify anonymity as a relevant factor in judging the content of a comment. If I remember correctly, you’ve raised the topic of anonymity twice in the past two months. In both instances you made what appear to be reckless accusations about Forbes users (David and Cyrus) the basis of your rebuttal, attacking them based on your perception that they are “anonymous.” On the other hand, I’ve never seen you level similar accusations against Forbes users like economart, agwscam, richardcnz and others with whom you find yourself in agreement. Do you agree that in honest debate, ad hominem attacks of this sort have no place?

“Commenter “cyruspinkerton” cites meteorologist Jeff Masters to bolster his viewpoint. Ironic, considering that when anybody doubting the idea of man-caused global warming cites a skeptic meteorologist, a chorus of the opposition howls that such meteorologists lack the requisite expertise in climate science.”

“I’ve been a meteorologist for 30 years, and I’ve never seen a year like 2011 in terms of extreme weather events.”

Now, a question for the sane people: does Jeff Masters’ opinion about the extreme weather events of 2011 require “expertise in climate science?” The obvious answer is no.

Unfortunately russellc00k’s red herring is typical of the way the science denial crew operates. Because they can’t win the argument on facts and reason, they resort to argument based on erroneous claims and logical fallacies.

“The public is not told where skeptics are wrong, we are told to ignore them because they’re on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry. Problem is, we have yet to see a solitary bit of evidence to support this accusation.”

Oh really? Not a “solitary bit of evidence to support this accusation?” Don’t you get the news under that rock you call home?

Consider this evidence…

- (From the Guardian, 28 June 2011)

“One of the world’s most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.

Dr Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, is known for his view that global warming and the melting of the arctic sea ice is caused by solar variation rather than human-caused CO2 emissions, and that polar bears are not primarily threatened by climate change.

But according to a Greenpeace US investigation, he has been heavily funded by coal and oil industry interests since 2001, receiving money from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Insitute and Koch Industries along with Southern, one of the world’s largest coal-burning utility companies. Since 2002, it is alleged, every new grant he has received has been from either oil or coal interests.”

- Patrick Michaels admits that “40% of his funding comes from fossil fuel sources. Known funding includes $49,000 from German Coal Mining Association, $15,000 from Edison Electric Institute and $40,000 from Cyprus Minerals Company, an early supporter of People for the West, a “wise use” group. He received $63,000 for research on global climate change from Western Fuels Association, above and beyond the undisclosed amount he is paid for the World Climate Report/Review. According to Harper’s magazine, Michaels has recieved over $115,000 over the past four years from coal and oil interests… In July of 2006, it was revealed that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association “contributed $100,000 to Dr. Michaels.” (from ExxonSecrets)

There really is no excuse for russellc00k’s ignorance of the financial relationship between the fossil fuel industry and the climate science denial industry. And now that I’ve provided a sample of the vast amount of evidence linking the two, russellc00k will establish himself as a science denial troll if he continues in his ignorance.

“Cyrus claims global warming must be a crisis because a large insurance corporation says natural disasters caused record economic damage last year.”

Actually, no, I didn’t claim anything about global warming being a “crisis.” Are you really so desperate that you need to lie? Or is this just your usual straw man tactic? Either way, it’s really pathetic.

Try to argue facts, Jimbo. I can’t stop you from pulling something out of your backside and claiming it as a fact, and I can’t keep you from creating straw man arguments because you don’t have the skill to debate honestly, but you’re really embarrassing yourself by relying so frequently on tactics that would disqualify you from a middle school debate.

And then you extended your lie with this: “In other words, an anonymous person makes the remarkable claim that because a tsunami and earthquake devastated Japan last year, humans must be creating a global warming crisis.”

That statement is so far from the truth I think you must have pulled it from Gary Marshall’s backside. I realize you have little or no regard for the truth, but from the point of view of a public relations guy like you, isn’t it bad to be caught in such an obvious lie? Doesn’t it damage whatever might be left of your credibility, Jimbo? And since you’re one of the faces of climate science denial, when you discredit yourself by lying in such an obvious way, doesn’t it discredit your clients in the fossil fuel industry and their cause?

Think about it, Jimbo. This gig won’t last forever, especially not with the facts against you. What will you do when you lose this one? Go back to Big Tobacco and help them sell cigarettes to kids? Or maybe help the mining industry convince people that higher concentrations of arsenic in drinking water is beneficial? Don’t forget to mention that you took a health and safety class in high school so that the Heartland Institute can list you as a “public health expert.”

“Further in his post, the anonymous person produced a quote from an insurance industry spokesman using global warming as an excuse to charge customers higher premiums. When objective data show declining trends in tornado, hurricane and drought frequency, but an insurance industry spokesman nevertheless uses global warming myths as an excuse to charge its customers higher premiums”

Wow! James Taylor is accusing the insurance industry of blatant fraud! I wonder what the insurance industry would think of this accusation. I’d better forward it to them to see if they have a response.

Russell “without this one reason for us to ignore the skeptic scientists, we would then be obligated to listen to them, because that is the responsible thing to do.”

OK. Listen to them. Then check the facts they claim AND all the other facts that they DON’T mention. Maybe they don’t know them, maybe they ‘forgot’, maybe they deliberately didn’t mention them, even though they do know them.

Then form your own conclusion. My conclusion (and this is the polite version) are mendacious, manipulative schemers seeking to confuse people with selective representations of the truth and an appeal to our baser tribal instincts.

When we hear bad news we tend to react poorly to those who give that news. But we get over it.

Imagine some crowd of people at a public meeting where an official is delivering some unpleasant news. The crowd might initially be angry & hostile but when they have time to think it through they will probably understand. Now imagine a few individuals start circulating among the crowd whispering ‘Its all a con, a fraud, they don’t know what they are talking about, they just want your money, freedom, liberty, whatever. See, I have a few scraps of paper here that PROVE they are lying’.

These people are seeking to ensure that the crowd doesn’t calm down, and is even led to think the person telling them the bad news is lying.

The old term for people whose job it was to work the crowd like this was ‘Rabble Rousers’.

And that is Mr Taylor’s job. He is employed as a Rabble Rouser, although no doubt with a good haircut and an expensive suite.

So when he hands you his scrap of paper with his few ‘facts’, if you feel inclined to listen to him, ask yourself Why? Why would I place more trust in a paid lobbyist than people who are actually qualified in the field.

If you are ill, would you trust your Doctor? Or a lawyer telling you that your Doctor is a quack and he knows this because he has read a couple of articles about medicine in ‘Popular Science’?

Don’t you believe it Peter. Taylor needs to be very well informed to prioritise which science & news he needs to trash, mis-report or ignore. This sort of ‘seeming ignorance’ of so much actually takes a lot of work – I’m sure Taylor puts in a lot of work to earn his salary.

Why not put up another post on another area of AGW science and wait for Taylor to come back with his criticism? He will. Thats what he is paid to do. Contrive ways to try and trash things that his paymasters want trashed. Nice little Earner I suppose, if you have the stomach for it.